You see, Barack Obama thinks you are breathtakingly stupid. He counts on it, in fact. And he may be right. Obama wants to say in passing that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and leave you with the dimwitted impression that the reason Reagan kept raising the debt ceiling is because he was just utterly irresponsible with his spending.

But here’s the question: why did Reagan have to come back to the Democrats with his hat in his hand an average of every five months throughout his entire presidency?

Because Democrats wanted to torment him, that’s why. Democrats FORCED Reagan to keep coming back again and again and again and again. You know, the same way they say would be so awful for Republicans to do to Obama now.

A senior House Democrat on Monday alleged that Republicans want the short-term debt increase in order to kill the economic recovery and blame President Obama for high unemployment.

House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on Monday said that a two-stop approach being weighed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to force another debt-ceiling vote next year was a “cynical” ploy to keep a cloud over the economy.

“The Boehner approach really intends to have another debate next year that is just as big and that’s their point. A big debate this year puts a cloud over the markets and the economic environment, and another debate next year will do the same thing to our economic recovery,” he told a news conference. “So it’s a very cynical, regain-the-majority strategy that puts the entire economy at risk.”

That doesn’t sound very good of those nasty Republicans, does it?

Obama has said he would even veto a short term stopgap bill. One of the big reasons he wants a longer term bill that will carry him past the November 2012 election is that it will get his reckless spending off the table. Other than that, he’s right: a longer term deal WOULD help the country have a little more stability, which would be a good thing if we could get it. That said, I would ask if Obama actually believes such stability and certainty is a good thing, why Obama has refused to allow such similiar certainty and stability in terms of taxes, or regulations, or health care costs, or energy availability, etc.??? Why has the guy been constantly threatening to raise taxes, so people would not be able to be sure what their tax liability would be? Why is it that there are more than a 120 new regulations being written on employment? Why does Boeing not get the certainty of knowing the NLRD won’t be out to destroy them for building a plant in a right to work state? Why are there hundreds of regulations being written for ObamaCare such that NOBODY knows what that mess will look like? I mean, the “stability’ argument would have been a good one if Obama had applied it to just ONE OTHER THING. But he didn’t. Which is why his demand for a long term debt ceiling deal is much more likely entirely political, and to HELL with any other consideration.

Now, I would argue that the primary reason that Republicans are looking at short-term increases is because there isn’t anywhere NEAR enough agreement to have a long-term extension. Obama wanting tax hikes even after he previously said – and I quote – “You don’t raise taxes during a recession” – might well mean either we have a short-term increase to get us through the immediate crisis or we have NOTHING AT ALL.

But let’s assume that Edward Markey isn’t just a vile lying weasel demagoguing rat bastard and assume he’s pointing out the truth.

So why in the HELL on Democrats’ own tortured reasoning did they torture Ronald Reagan every five months on average???? I’d like Obama to answer that. If you’re going to cite Reagan raising the debt ceiling 18 times as somehow working in your favor, Barry Hussein, you could at least explain why Republicans shouldn’t force you to come to them and beg to raise the debt ceiling 18 times during YOUR mis-presidency.

And let’s remember that Barack Obama is the worst kind of cynical political opportunist. Let’s remember how he ripped into George Bush in a vicious personal attack when it was George Bush who needed to raise the debt ceiling:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

So why the hell shouldn’t Republicans leave you twisting in the wind given your pleasure in watching George Bush twist in the wind? Why shouldn’t they just let the whole damn economy collapse by acting the same vile way YOU acted, you slime in chief?

How about if we add another major Democrat failure who has been demonizing Republicans over their opposition to the Democrats’ TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY PLAN to raise the debt ceiling? What did Harry Reid say when Bush was president and he was the same vile piece of rotten filth Senator he is now?

REID: “If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy?How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country.”

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS NOW, HARRY REID?!?!?!

Why don’t YOU explain why we should NEVER balance our budget like the Republicans want to do with an amendment that will REQUIRE a balanced budget?!?!? You know, in light of your OWN demagoguery.

You see, the Republicans have publicly said that they spent too much, but they learned their lesson and they want to STOP THE MADNESS.

For hypocrite demagogues like you and Barack Obama, cutting spending is all just talk and posturing. You want to plunge this country off a cliff, and you’re prepared to demonize anybody who so much as tries to slow you down.

I just thought someone should point out that in Obama’s own demagogic tirade yesterday, he openly acknowledged that his party is a bunch of nasty hypocrite cockroaches by his own standard.

“Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets – spend no more than we can afford.”

Go back to Reagan coming to Democrats with his hat in his hand an average of every five months to increase the debt ceiling and thereby keep the government running.

Republicans want to cut spending. But what do you think Democrats wanted when Reagan was president? Democrats wanted to INCREASE spending. And they were in a position – about every five moths on average for a grand total of 18 times by Obama’s own count – to force Reagan to increase government spending in order to get all those 18 debt ceiling increases every five months or so.

Alternatively, when Bill Clinton was president, the deficit was dramatically reduced. And why was that? Because Clinton and Democrats failed so massively the first two years of Clinton’s presidency that Republicans swept into power over both branches of Congress in the historic 1994 Republican Revolution. And they FORCED Clinton to say “The era of big government is over.” Republicans began to act on the very first platform of the Contract with America, which called for balancing the budget. That, and of course, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush having just won the Cold War and putting an end to the Soviet Union, Bill Clinton was able to gut the Pentagon and Intelligence agencies budgets (which helped precipitate the 9/11 disaster, for what it’s worth).

When it comes to penetrating Obama’s constant web of demonization and lies, a few facts go a long way indeed.

Wow. I would love to see factcheck.org get a hold of all this nonsense. Discretionary spending under George W. Bush added 5 trillion dollars to the deficit . Obama has added $1.5 trillion and $1.1 trillion of that was the stimulus to combat the Republican caused recession. So by my left wing math, Obama’s “reckless spending” really amounts to adding $400 billion to the deficit. $400 BILLION!!!! STOP THE PRESSES! This cat is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush’s two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama’s fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That’s more than 100 percent of the value of the nation’s economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

That’s $4 trillion in just three years of Obama, you lying little TURD. And you see that Obama wants to raise the debt another $2 Trillion plus by the end of his first term, which will be over $6 TRILLION in 4 years, which would mean he will raise the debt by more than $12 Trillion over 8 years to make Obama comparable to Bush’s eight years. Which pretty much makes Bush’s $5 trillion look pretty damn tame in comparison.

So your math is as stupid as the rest of you is. And you are GONE from this blog when you weasel your way in and assert things that are FALSE.

That’s the level of stupid you get when you take New York Times opion pieces and make them your gospel.

Now, you something else that’s dishonest, you dishonest vermin. You argue that Bush is actually responsible for Obama’s debt because he had to combat the Republican-caused recession. Well, first of all, that recession was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and DEMOCRATS far more than Bush or Republicans. Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie and Freddie. And Barney Frank was still saying that these corrupt GSEs were “just fine” even as they collapsed into bankruptcy taking more than 60% of the US mortgage market they controlled down with them.

That said, your argument that Obama isn’t to blame because he was just fxing Bush’s mess might not be the statement of a totally dishonest and depraved vermin, but you refuse to give the same benefit of the doubt to Bush, don’t you?

Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.

Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

You can take your pile of lies and slanders to hell with you, Smith. But you’re done sharing them here.

I just came across an NPR article that makes the point even more forcefully to any moron who wants to try to pass the bullcrap lie that Bush somehow outspent Obama:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

Now, they didn’t quite put it into “perspective” enough. Obama spent an average of $5 BILLION a day thus far. How about Bush? Divide $607 billion/year by 365 days. That equals $1.6 billion a day.

So if $1.6 billion a day is more than $5 billion a day, then maybe you liberal morons have a point.

It would have exposed them. It would have demonstrated their priorities. It would have displayed the fact that they have no control and no leadership.

Democrats have become everything that is despicable and vile in America.

Here we are now, and the Democrats STILL haven’t bothered to pass any kind of budget or show ANY kind of leadership a good two and a quarter years later. THEY REFUSE TO SHOW LEADERSHIP; rather, they wait like insects for the Republicans to lead (because Obama won’t and SOMEBODY HAS TO), and then they get their special interests to go ballistic against whatever cuts the Republicans courageously try to pursue to save our country before it’s too late.

Democrats count on the fact that the American people are both stupid and depraved. They may well be right. If so, then the Democrats will win the demagoguing battle (and demagoguing is the ONLY thing Democrats can do well), and America will get the collapse that it now deserves.

If you look at the Islamic world, what you see is a people in regime after regime who believe practically every lie they’re told. And they believe lies because they don’t have the moral integrity to seek truth.